4 ms·

We can't swear in the new senator from Arizona who coincidentally has the tie breaking vote to force the release of the Epstein files.

hdgvhicv 1y ago
Ok, so this list is released. Let’s say it has photos of Trump with underage sex trafficking victims. Then what? Do you really think that would be enough to change anything?
- jackvalentine 1y ago
  I’m not sure what you’re angling to have someone else say for you. Could you just say it?
- gryfft 1y ago
  If releasing the Epstein files would accomplish nothing, why is preventing their release the indisputable highest priority of the Republican party?
  - rkomorn 1y ago
    I'd say the risk for republicans is more looking like they lost something to democrats (or worse, caved) than the actual content of the files.
    - gryfft 1y ago
      Then you simply have not been paying attention. The Republican base was full throatedly calling for the release of the files mere months ago. They were sitting "on Bondi's desk." Releasing them then would not be seen as caving. Your argument is nonsensical.
      - rkomorn 1y ago
        My take is democrats called the republicans' "bluff" (because republicans never actually intended to release everything) and backed them into a corner of having to actively oppose the release because democrats don't. Now, even if those files end up being a nothingburger (because republicans will just shrug off whatever makes them look bad), it'll be on republicans if they let the release happen. My main point is: republicans aren't opposing the release because "they're on the list", they're opposing it because it'll look like a loss if the release happens.
        gryfft 1y ago
        > because republicans never actually intended to release everything All you did was hide my previous point in here and then pretend it's not there. These mental gymnastics must be exhausting.
        rkomorn 1y ago
        Fair. I thought there was difference because I thought your stance was that republicans are afraid that the files themselves contain things that make them look bad (eg Trump or some other big-name republican was mentioned in them), and I don't think that's the case. Edit: well, I don't think they're afraid of it, not that there's nothing that makes them look bad. > These mental gymnastics must be exhausting. Not sure what makes you feel that's a necessary thing to say, TBH.
        HaZeust 1y ago
        >"I don't think [Republicans] are afraid of [The Epstein Files]" With the scope of approach the House, Senate, and Executive cabinet are taking to avoid any release or mention of the Epstein files, I truly believe anyone who says such a thing are either not presently politically-literate, or are less than honest with themselves and others. I simply see no other avenue, and I've heard no coherent logic that steelmans the Republican position on this matter for ANY motivation besides fear of, at the very least, members of their cohort being implicated for child sex crimes. Nonetheless, I'll be happy to hear a shot taken again at it.
- btilly 1y ago
  Trump's decision to hide the list was the first time that I've seen MAGA anything split with Trump. Proof that it contains egregious crimes by Trump, really could widen that. Doubly so given that these are crimes which Trump can still be prosecuted. Particularly since there is no statute of limitations on many sex trafficking crimes. Could it widen it enough to allow Republican politicians to reject Trump? That's a good question. But I do find it hopeful that Ted Cruz, who has been so good at folding to Trump that he now resembles a piece of origami, was actually able to stand up and mock Trump's administration for his attempt to crush free speech by shutting down Jimmy Kimble. If Trump loses a chunk of his base, maybe some R politicians will remember what it's like to have a spine.
  - foogazi 1y ago
    > Could it widen it enough to allow Republican politicians to reject Trump? There are no Republican politicians left
    - btilly 1y ago
      There are plenty of politicians with R in the name. That their policies don't look like Republican policies of 30 years ago shouldn't surprise. Republican policies of 30 years ago didn't look much like Republican policies of 60 years ago. The current ones don't fail to be Republican. It is just that Republican now means something different than it used to. The same exact comments could be made about Democrats. For example look at Joe Biden's legislative record. He was President as a champion of DEI and LBGTQ+ rights. But back in the Clinton era, he sponsored a crime bill that put a ton of blacks in prison, and sponsored DOMA, a bill that blocked federal recognition of gay marriages.
      - foogazi 1y ago
        > That their policies don't look like Republican policies of 30 years ago shouldn't surprise. There’s only MAGA now Their policies don’t even look like their policies 8 years ago - there are no policies or principles
- matwood 1y ago
  > Do you really think that would be enough to change anything? If anything could change something, it would be these files. The Epstein case/list along with deep state child trafficking conspiracies in general is a foundational pillar of MAGA. Trump doing a 180 and saying the list doesn't matter was like the Pope saying Jesus was no big deal. He had to know this from a strategy standpoint which makes it even weirder they are trying to hide them.
  - cosmicgadget 1y ago
    Joe Rogan and Alex Jones still have listeners.
    - johnnyanmac 1y ago
      As a financial examole: I know a very famous content creator from the pre-google YouTube days who did highly edited skits. Lots of drama happened, as is the course, and he's faded from the public eye. Outside of making a few videos 2 years ago, he hasn't posted anything in 9 years. His patron hasn't updated in just as long. I'm not even sure if he tweeted this is year. He still has 140k subs on YouTube. He peaked at $4000/month on patron but still makes $200 today /after 9 years of barely snyghubv) You're never hitting zero after a certain point unless you shit down yourself. Joe Rogan is still popular but Alex Jones is definitely hit
- tayo42 1y ago
  For some weird reason there's a subset of conservatives obsessed with this specific crime
- iLoveOncall 1y ago
  [flagged]
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  Yes.
mediumdeviation 1y ago
I think you mean congresswoman, Adelita Grijalva https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelita_Grijalva https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelita_Grijalva > On September 23, 2025, Grijalva was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in a special election to succeed her father, defeating Republican nominee Daniel Butierez.
flanked-evergl 1y ago
[flagged]

hdgvhicv 1y ago

Ok, so this list is released. Let’s say it has photos of Trump with underage sex trafficking victims. Then what? Do you really think that would be enough to change anything?

jackvalentine 1y ago
I’m not sure what you’re angling to have someone else say for you. Could you just say it?
gryfft 1y ago
If releasing the Epstein files would accomplish nothing, why is preventing their release the indisputable highest priority of the Republican party?
- rkomorn 1y ago
  I'd say the risk for republicans is more looking like they lost something to democrats (or worse, caved) than the actual content of the files.
  - gryfft 1y ago
    Then you simply have not been paying attention. The Republican base was full throatedly calling for the release of the files mere months ago. They were sitting "on Bondi's desk." Releasing them then would not be seen as caving. Your argument is nonsensical.
    - rkomorn 1y ago
      My take is democrats called the republicans' "bluff" (because republicans never actually intended to release everything) and backed them into a corner of having to actively oppose the release because democrats don't. Now, even if those files end up being a nothingburger (because republicans will just shrug off whatever makes them look bad), it'll be on republicans if they let the release happen. My main point is: republicans aren't opposing the release because "they're on the list", they're opposing it because it'll look like a loss if the release happens.
      - gryfft 1y ago
        > because republicans never actually intended to release everything All you did was hide my previous point in here and then pretend it's not there. These mental gymnastics must be exhausting.
        rkomorn 1y ago
        Fair. I thought there was difference because I thought your stance was that republicans are afraid that the files themselves contain things that make them look bad (eg Trump or some other big-name republican was mentioned in them), and I don't think that's the case. Edit: well, I don't think they're afraid of it, not that there's nothing that makes them look bad. > These mental gymnastics must be exhausting. Not sure what makes you feel that's a necessary thing to say, TBH.
        HaZeust 1y ago
        >"I don't think [Republicans] are afraid of [The Epstein Files]" With the scope of approach the House, Senate, and Executive cabinet are taking to avoid any release or mention of the Epstein files, I truly believe anyone who says such a thing are either not presently politically-literate, or are less than honest with themselves and others. I simply see no other avenue, and I've heard no coherent logic that steelmans the Republican position on this matter for ANY motivation besides fear of, at the very least, members of their cohort being implicated for child sex crimes. Nonetheless, I'll be happy to hear a shot taken again at it.
btilly 1y ago
Trump's decision to hide the list was the first time that I've seen MAGA anything split with Trump. Proof that it contains egregious crimes by Trump, really could widen that. Doubly so given that these are crimes which Trump can still be prosecuted. Particularly since there is no statute of limitations on many sex trafficking crimes. Could it widen it enough to allow Republican politicians to reject Trump? That's a good question. But I do find it hopeful that Ted Cruz, who has been so good at folding to Trump that he now resembles a piece of origami, was actually able to stand up and mock Trump's administration for his attempt to crush free speech by shutting down Jimmy Kimble. If Trump loses a chunk of his base, maybe some R politicians will remember what it's like to have a spine.
- foogazi 1y ago
  > Could it widen it enough to allow Republican politicians to reject Trump? There are no Republican politicians left
  - btilly 1y ago
    There are plenty of politicians with R in the name. That their policies don't look like Republican policies of 30 years ago shouldn't surprise. Republican policies of 30 years ago didn't look much like Republican policies of 60 years ago. The current ones don't fail to be Republican. It is just that Republican now means something different than it used to. The same exact comments could be made about Democrats. For example look at Joe Biden's legislative record. He was President as a champion of DEI and LBGTQ+ rights. But back in the Clinton era, he sponsored a crime bill that put a ton of blacks in prison, and sponsored DOMA, a bill that blocked federal recognition of gay marriages.
    - foogazi 1y ago
      > That their policies don't look like Republican policies of 30 years ago shouldn't surprise. There’s only MAGA now Their policies don’t even look like their policies 8 years ago - there are no policies or principles
matwood 1y ago
> Do you really think that would be enough to change anything? If anything could change something, it would be these files. The Epstein case/list along with deep state child trafficking conspiracies in general is a foundational pillar of MAGA. Trump doing a 180 and saying the list doesn't matter was like the Pope saying Jesus was no big deal. He had to know this from a strategy standpoint which makes it even weirder they are trying to hide them.
- cosmicgadget 1y ago
  Joe Rogan and Alex Jones still have listeners.
  - johnnyanmac 1y ago
    As a financial examole: I know a very famous content creator from the pre-google YouTube days who did highly edited skits. Lots of drama happened, as is the course, and he's faded from the public eye. Outside of making a few videos 2 years ago, he hasn't posted anything in 9 years. His patron hasn't updated in just as long. I'm not even sure if he tweeted this is year. He still has 140k subs on YouTube. He peaked at $4000/month on patron but still makes $200 today /after 9 years of barely snyghubv) You're never hitting zero after a certain point unless you shit down yourself. Joe Rogan is still popular but Alex Jones is definitely hit
tayo42 1y ago
For some weird reason there's a subset of conservatives obsessed with this specific crime
iLoveOncall 1y ago
[flagged]
johnnyanmac 1y ago
Yes.

mediumdeviation 1y ago

I think you mean congresswoman, Adelita Grijalva https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelita_Grijalva https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelita_Grijalva > On September 23, 2025, Grijalva was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in a special election to succeed her father, defeating Republican nominee Daniel Butierez.

flanked-evergl 1y ago

[flagged]